We as human beings, experience the universe via our direct perception by use of our senses. There's no experience of any world/universe/anything, outside of the perception of it. We can all agree on that, I would hope.

Yet, what many, including Goran, take from that, is that human experience=existence, when there's no correlation to that (other than ramming silly philosophical beliefs down your throat and taking them as truths). It's just silly and comical to assume that a tree does not exist just because this puny human body is not conscious in this moment of the actual tree. So, while a tree, on its own, might not necessarily exist in the exact form (sense perception), that we, humans experience it, (meaning green for us, might be something far different to another species), we also know very well, that other animals/species (while a different perception of the tree perhaps), also experience the tree as separate from their own bodies, since we, those animals, and the tree can all interact with each other at the same time. Granted, the animals might not conceptualize it, like we do as humans, and while my experience of the tree might be far different than a particular animal's experience of the tree (squirrel for example), the tree, itself, is still doing it's own thing and just Being as....the tree. Meaning......

The name (concept) of the object, is irrelevant to me as I see it as brought up by rachmiel above. Because whether it's called a tree or called a piece of fecal matter, the tree still experiences and interacts with its environment in its own unique way that we can't possibly understand from our limited human perspectives, regardless of who/what is actually sensing it with their own sense perception. Sense perception is merely a means of experience, but is incredibly limited and in no way is meant to equate experience with existence.

Consider a music concert. If the world only existed, in our own direct sense perception of our own direct bodies, then how would 20,000 people at a concert, be able to harmonize and interact with each other screaming the lyrics to the same song? How would a band communicate musically, if the world only existed in our own sense perception (solipsism)? How would traffic flow? How would weather patterns be able to be predicted? Modern science has its flaws, but how else would science be able to observe the universe at its recognizable patterns? So, therefore, we already know that the world is clearly more than just our own direct sense perception of our individual bodies. Therefore, solipsism is just a delusion brought on from the belief of nonsensical philosophy. So, if we accept that multiple minds are all experiencing (7 billion plus), then who's to say where that experiencing stops? Is it just humans? Who are you to say that it is? Is it humans and animals? And when you keep going down the ladder, you start to realize that everything is already conscious and your own puny human perspective, is just that.

The wider view is that everything is already conscious including the tree, including the particles that make up the tree. Particles interact with each other, right? Just like a tree interacts with its own environment. A tree does not need a brain to experience consciousness, like a human does, because a brain is vital for a human's experience. But, a tree is still aware in a whole different aspect than humans experience that awareness. We can even say the Universe as a whole, on a holographic greater scale, is equally conscious.

The way I see consciousness, is merely a matter of awareness. Awareness differs for different levels of Being. Planetary Awareness means the planet is aware of itself through itself, just like the universe is aware of itself, on a greater scale. So, our humanness is merely one other possible exploratory way for consciousness to know itself, in a more intellectual, rational kind of manner, because that's how humans interact and experience.

If there were no flowers outside of our human perception, then why would bees be drawn to those flowers every year and yet, us humans can interact and see the exact same flowers that those bees are pollinating? Look how complex the pollination process is, in the first place. Do you think a flower needs our silly human perception to allow it to bloom? Didn't flowers, and trees exist far before us humans inhabited this universe? And how do flowers interact without the particles that comprise them?

Folks, life is a far more complicated interconnected web of energy where everything affects everything else energetically, than merely claiming that nothing exists outside of our perception. That's just a away to escape from your reality.

One day, when we have our life reviews, many of us with these limited views, will look back and realize how silly, narrow and limited it was for us to think that our human perception is all that is, when you consider that human perception, is not even a mere speck on the radar of conscious exploration.

Enlightened2B wrote:The name (concept) of the object, is irrelevant to me as I see it as brought up by rachmiel above. Because whether it's called a tree or called a piece of fecal matter, the tree still experiences and interacts with its environment in its own unique way that we can't possibly understand from our limited human perspectives, regardless of who/what is actually sensing it with their own sense perception.

E2B I think you *are* naming the tree: an object that experiences and interacts with its environment. On the level of everyday conceptual understanding,this is clearly true. But everyday understanding only goes so far, right? Witness how our understanding of reality has shifted dramatically many times over the past millennia. There was a time when we saw a tree as a magical forest creature, now we see it as an aggregate of particles obeying physical laws, a thousand years from now we might see it as something utterly different. These are our interpretations, the stories we tell each other around the campfire.

A human mind interprets _________ as a tree, a squirrel as home, a bird as a branch to sit on, a bug as food, a molecule of bark as ??????, a neutrino as ??????, etc. Which interpretation is right? ALL of them! Within their contexts.

Ultimately -- independent of any context, of any interpretation -- what's right, what is this _________ we call a tree? Is there any "ultimate?"

coriolis wrote:Information, however, cannot be cleanly separated from that which processes it just as what is seen does not exist independently from that which sees it and some information is mostly "human invented".

hmm, so basically, you believe that the tree does not exist apart from your human perception of seeing it? If that's not what you meant, then, care to embellish a bit, by what you actually did mean by the bolded statement above?

I am saying that, in actual experience (not the ad-hoc conceptualizaion of experience) nothing is ever seen unless something/someone "sees" it. You may conceptually, and perhaps correctly, posit it's visual existence at any time you wish, but you will never experience it until you see it.

You may posit correctly that Carolina Reaper peppers are hot but you will not experience that until your sense of taste and capsaicin receptors interact with the pepper itself.
In experience one is never present without the other even though in conceptual space it may well seem to be that way.

If no tree had never been perceived by any means whatsover trees would never have existed in experience and therefore have no basis for "existing" in conceptual space either except as something imaginary extrapolated from experiences of other things.

rachMiel wrote:
E2B I think you *are* naming the tree: an object that experiences and interacts with its environment. On the level of everyday conceptual understanding,this is clearly true. But everyday understanding only goes so far, right? Witness how our understanding of reality has shifted dramatically many times over the past millennia. There was a time when we saw a tree as a magical forest creature, now we see it as an aggregate of particles obeying physical laws, a thousand years from now we might see it as something utterly different. These are our interpretations, the stories we tell each other around the campfire.

A human mind interprets _________ as a tree, a squirrel as home, a bird as a branch to sit on, a bug as food, a molecule of bark as ??????, a neutrino as ??????, etc. Which interpretation is right? ALL of them! Within their contexts.

Ultimately -- independent of any context, of any interpretation -- what's right, what is this _________ we call a tree? Is there any "ultimate?"

I get what you're saying, but to me, it's not a matter of one or another as a description of an object. Meaning, a tree ultimately is all of those things together among many other things, we which can't even comprehend from our human minds right now!

So, you're exactly right in that, labeling the tree as any, one thing, is ultimately limiting what the tree actually is, but that wasn't my intent. I was merely attempting to describe one aspect of the tree in that statement above for conversation purposes.

coriolis wrote:
If no tree had never been perceived by any means whatsover trees would never have existed in experience and therefore have no basis for "existing" in conceptual space either except as something imaginary extrapolated from experiences of other things.

A tree does not need to be perceived by anything or anyone, just to claim its existence, because a tree is already a perceiving expression of Source consciousness itself as its own vehicle of experience, just like you and I, and therefore exists as such. Meaning, just because this limited human vehicle or another limited vehicle of experience cannot perceive the tree, does not, in any way invalidate that tree's very experience/existence. Yes, you and I can't know it exists, but that's simply because our sensory tools are limited as are the sensory of a mouse, a dog, a cat, a bug, a bacterium, etc. But, that tree sure does know it exists! Just because I as an experiencer via this human body/mind cannot know what is outside of the projectory of my sensory of this body/mind, does not in any way, invalidate ANYTHING that is actually in existence. It merely means that this vehicle or another vehicle don't have the direct experience right now of that tree because our sensory is limited.

I or anyone or anything, don't need to experience the mouse in the woods by itself to bring the mouse into existence because the mouse knows it exists by its very existence! You're referring to a philosophical query (maybe even unintentionally), which, is a dangerous path to get caught up because it creates an anthropomorphic view of human perception. A tree does not require anything, or anyone to bring it into existence, because it's self existing, whether or not I see it, whether or not you see it, whether or not the tree next to it perceives it! Just like particles themselves that comprise the actual tree or a cell or a bacterium or a human or a rock. All of these are self existing. I know it might be difficult for us to wrap our heads around the idea that it JUST may be very possible that everything in the universe, such as a tree is already experiencing without the need for someone or something to experience that tree to claim it exists. It's just the limited human mind that thinks in this way, not realizing that human experience is just a speck on the radar once again of potential conscious exploration. When a tree falls, and no one was around, did it actually fall? Of course it did! Otherwise, you're invalidating the experience of anything and anyone, that your limited body simply cannot experience in any given moment.

rachMiel wrote:
E2B I think you *are* naming the tree: an object that experiences and interacts with its environment. On the level of everyday conceptual understanding,this is clearly true. But everyday understanding only goes so far, right? Witness how our understanding of reality has shifted dramatically many times over the past millennia. There was a time when we saw a tree as a magical forest creature, now we see it as an aggregate of particles obeying physical laws, a thousand years from now we might see it as something utterly different. These are our interpretations, the stories we tell each other around the campfire.

A human mind interprets _________ as a tree, a squirrel as home, a bird as a branch to sit on, a bug as food, a molecule of bark as ??????, a neutrino as ??????, etc. Which interpretation is right? ALL of them! Within their contexts.

Ultimately -- independent of any context, of any interpretation -- what's right, what is this _________ we call a tree? Is there any "ultimate?"

I get what you're saying, but to me, it's not a matter of one or another as a description of an object. Meaning, a tree ultimately is all of those things together among many other things, we which can't even comprehend from our human minds right now!

So, you're exactly right in that, labeling the tree as any, one thing, is ultimately limiting what the tree actually is, but that wasn't my intent. I was merely attempting to describe one aspect of the tree in that statement above for conversation purposes.

Enlightened2B wrote:
A tree does not need to be perceived by anything or anyone, just to claim its existence, because a tree is already a perceiving expression of Source consciousness itself as its own vehicle of experience, just like you and I, and therefore exists as such.

This is not anthropomorphic?

Enlightened2B wrote:
Meaning, just because this limited human vehicle or another limited vehicle of experience cannot perceive the tree, does not, in any way invalidate that tree's very experience/existence. Yes, you and I can't know it exists, but that's simply because our sensory tools are limited as are the sensory of a mouse, a dog, a cat, a bug, a bacterium, etc. But, that tree sure does know it exists! Just because I as an experiencer via this human body/mind cannot know what is outside of the projectory of my sensory of this body/mind, does not in any way, invalidate ANYTHING that is actually in existence. It merely means that this vehicle or another vehicle don't have the direct experience right now of that tree because our sensory is limited.

I or anyone or anything, don't need to experience the mouse in the woods by itself to bring the mouse into existence because the mouse knows it exists by its very existence! You're referring to a philosophical query (maybe even unintentionally), which, is a dangerous path to get caught up because it creates an anthropomorphic view of human perception. A tree does not require anything, or anyone to bring it into existence, because it's self existing, whether or not I see it, whether or not you see it, whether or not the tree next to it perceives it! Just like particles themselves that comprise the actual tree or a cell or a bacterium or a human or a rock. All of these are self existing. I know it might be difficult for us to wrap our heads around the idea that it JUST may be very possible that everything in the universe, such as a tree is already experiencing without the need for someone or something to experience that tree to claim it exists. It's just the limited human mind that thinks in this way, not realizing that human experience is just a speck on the radar once again of potential conscious exploration. When a tree falls, and no one was around, did it actually fall? Of course it did! Otherwise, you're invalidating the experience of anything and anyone, that your limited body simply cannot experience in any given moment.

Fair enough, but for all practical purposes, if there has never been an experience of a thing that thing does not exist in any tangible sense which includes the mouse to the mouse itself if it has no experience of its own existence.
Until you experience the mouse in the woods for you it exists nowhere but in your mind as an extrapolation of your own or someone else's previous experience.
Unperceived = Unknown until perceived by whatever means it is. This is functional reality (the way things experientially unfold) not ontological theory.
We can assume all kinds of things exist but, without experience to back it up, it is all head knowledge rather than an experienced reality for anyone who has not directly perceived it.
It's the difference between perusing the menu at a restaurant and imagining what certain dishes will taste like and actually eating a meal -- it is abstract until it is real.
As humans we sometimes blur that obvious distinction as we tend to think that we, and our world, are our thoughts about them.

Enlightened2B wrote:
A tree does not need to be perceived by anything or anyone, just to claim its existence, because a tree is already a perceiving expression of Source consciousness itself as its own vehicle of experience, just like you and I, and therefore exists as such.

This is not anthropomorphic?

I'm not sure how that's anthopormophic to you. Anthopormorphic, meaning assigning human qualities to something. I'm asking you to consider the possibility that a tree exists because it's known by the whole (Source). It's, its own Being, is more than enough to claim its own existence whether I see it or not. Sure, I, personally can't know that it exists, nor can I personally claim it exists. But, it doesn't matter whether I know it or not, nor does it matter if any human or other animal 'knows' it because I am just a limited human vehicle as is any human or any animal.

Until you experience the mouse in the woods for you it exists nowhere but in your mind as an extrapolation of your own or someone else's previous experience.

Again....Human mind, yes. But, who cares if I know it or not in my own mind?

My knowing is limited as is yours. So, whether or not I know that a tree exists on a South Pacific Island is completely irrelevant. Of course, I can't know that directly right now from this vehicle alone.

There's no possible way for a HUMAN to know. But, consider that Source Consciousness doesn't give a shit if humans are aware of something or not. It's still known by the whole because anywhere, is already the center of the Universe, just because everything is already energetically connected at its core. It doesn't matter if something is perceived or not by something with human or animal eyes. Consider that every particle in the ground is experiencing, the sun is experiencing, water is experiencing, air is experiencing. Every piece of matter and non matter is experiencing. There's always relationship on every level here in physicality. Nothing can be experienced, without some sort of relationship. Therefore, there is always of level of experiencer/perceiver, perhaps not in the human sense or anything we can comprehend from our human minds, but still known from the Grand Perspective of Being because there's energetic resonance in every particle. It merely means that certain limited vehicles, simply can't know from their own limited body/minds from their positioning in physical space. I know it's a wild idea, but it's really not when you open your perspective to the possibilities....

We can assume all kinds of things exist but, without experience to back it up, it is all head knowledge rather than an experienced reality for anyone who has not directly perceived it.

Again, by experience here, you're referring to your own limited human bodily/mind experience. You're saying, if YOU (as your body/mind) can't experience something, then YOU as your own body/mind can't know it exists. In that sense, sure

It's the difference between perusing the menu at a restaurant and imagining what certain dishes will taste like and actually eating a meal -- it is abstract until it is real.

Here, you're talking about something far different, referencing human perception alone. Of course, none of us personally can know what something tastes like until we experience it, because taste is a human attribute. How something tastes is completely subjective to a human or to another animal. Who's debating that? It has no relevance on whether something exists or not which is what I'm attempting to reference in my posts in this thread.

Non-duality or whatever other path you want to reference is limited. I've grown out of it because it doesn't work for me anymore.

When I started researching non-physical realms, I started to see how incredibly limited and arrogant, my own silly human mind was, always thinking in terms of what I can know, from my own limited human vehicle, failing to consider the greater perspective (and I'm not blaming anyone because I was viewing it the same way for a long time).

My view is that it's irrelevant because the larger view is that everything is already connected energetically at its core to Source. We are bits and pieces of Source, who co-create this reality. Bits and pieces combined with every piece of matter in existence, the air, the water, the Sun, the Universe, every gas is co-creating and experiencing from its own limited viewpoint. A human experience is just that....an experience. It's merely one possible different avenue of knowing for Source Awareness. We can't fathom the idea that something that is outside of our mind's own capability of knowing, can possibly exist on its own, without our own limited minds claiming its existence. Because hey, if we can't know it directly by our own experience, who's to say it exists? We only claim to know what is part of our direct human experience and I can't blame you or anyone for thinking that way. Yet, you only limit yourself more.

This is my own view and only my perspective.

I leave you with a quote from Mellon Thomas Benedict which I use regularly because I resonate with it greatly;

So creation is God exploring God's Self through every way imaginable, in an ongoing, infinite exploration through every one of us. Through every piece of hair on your head, through every leaf on every tree, through every atom, God is exploring God's Self, the great "I am". I began to see that everything that is, is the Self, literally, your Self, my Self. Everything is the great Self. That is why God knows even when a leaf falls. That is possible because wherever you are is the center of the universe. Wherever any atom is, that is the center of the universe. There is God in that, and God in the void.

Enlightened2B wrote:When I started researching non-physical realms, I started to see how incredibly limited and arrogant, my own silly human mind was, always thinking in terms of what I can know, from my own limited human vehicle, failing to consider the greater perspective (and I'm not blaming anyone because I was viewing it the same way for a long time).

My view is that it's irrelevant because the larger view is that everything is already connected energetically at its core to Source. We are bits and pieces of Source, who co-create this reality. Bits and pieces combined with every piece of matter in existence, the air, the water, the Sun, the Universe, every gas is co-creating and experiencing from its own limited viewpoint. A human experience is just that....an experience. It's merely one possible different avenue of knowing for Source Awareness. We can't fathom the idea that something that is outside of our mind's own capability of knowing, can possibly exist on its own, without our own limited minds claiming its existence. Because hey, if we can't know it directly by our own experience, who's to say it exists? We only claim to know what is part of our direct human experience and I can't blame you or anyone for thinking that way. Yet, you only limit yourself more.

This is my own view and only my perspective.

I would have to say that I probably share your view, but in order not to trust in the arrogant assumptions of a human mind I humbly submit that that is not my experience but only what I believe and I honestly believe it because I want it to be true and other people who apparently have had the experience like Mellen-Thomas Benedict report it is true. But I myself have so far only looked at the menu -- not eaten the meal. So to me it sounds good and my mouth is watering but there's no food on the table yet.

Are you in the same situation as me or do you have direct experience?

I think there is a significant difference in these two types of "knowledge" -- the difference between "believing" and "being".

Sense perception is a mapping process. Autonomous learning Machines can be designed to artificially sense perceive (map) their surroundings (primary layer) => target layer (symbols). Biological systems (animals or humans) also sense perceive (map the world) by way of neural networks.

So what EB2 & I are saying is you can remove the sense perception process (mapping or target layer) and the primary layer (physical tree A.K.A quantum bits) would still exist. The primary layer doesn't need to co-exist with sense perception.

Evolution basically says rudimentary sense perception (mapping from primary to target layer) probably didn't arise on planet earth until a 2500 million years ago when photosynthesis occurred. The trees arrived before mammal perception at 250 million years.

To assert the earth (or trees) do not exist without human perception (mapping to a neural network) is just insane. We already know through well established evolutionary science that humans didn't even evolve until more recently in the evolutionary time-line .

The arrival of the primordial soup ( A.K.A life) or planet earth in the form of carbon based chemistry in the form of liquids interacting together... allowed an enormous amount of complexity of quantum bits that living cells sprang out from in the evolutionary cycle. As the Universe became more complex, it was able to map from the primary layer to target layer which was the origin of sense perception.

Last edited by ashley72 on Tue Mar 31, 2015 7:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

rachMiel wrote:
It would be fun to explore Eastern* phenomonology as a group, read the same stuff, discuss, that kind of thing. Anyone interested?

Eastern phenomonology and Eastern philosophy are just more limited ideas I've come to discover.

All ideas are limited, it's the nature of the beast. But I find a good session working through the (right!) theory can be enlightening indeed ... though often (for me) the light shows up later, well after the working through is done.

ashley72 wrote:
So what EB2 & I are saying is you can remove the sense perception process (mapping or target layer) and the primary layer (physical tree A.K.A quantum bits) would still exist. The primary layer doesn't need to co-exist with sense perception.

You do realize that this is an hypothesis that cannot possibly be experimentally proven since the target layer has to have at least some role in conducting the experiment.

coriolis wrote:
I would have to say that I probably share your view, but in order not to trust in the arrogant assumptions of a human mind I humbly submit that that is not my experience but only what I believe and I honestly believe it because I want it to be true and other people who apparently have had the experience like Mellen-Thomas Benedict report it is true. But I myself have so far only looked at the menu -- not eaten the meal. So to me it sounds good and my mouth is watering but there's no food on the table yet.

Are you in the same situation as me or do you have direct experience?

I think there is a significant difference in these two types of "knowledge" -- the difference between "believing" and "being".

No, I haven't had a NDE to validate what I've said above, although I have had numerous lucid dreams and almost an OBE. But, that's irrelevant here. Nor do I claim that the above is any kind of truth. I'm merely suggesting the idea as something to consider from a wider context based on a number of factors including the reports of hundreds of thousands within the non physical sector. When you analyze any object, you break it down to matter and matter is energy at its core....essentially empty space, when you really break it down. So, energetically, it would make sense that the smallest particle is connected to the largest of perceived objects. Reductionism, just like the 'who am I' inquiry is also a form of reductionism when it comes to analyzing matter.

Everything expressed on this forum, is limited including what I say or what you say or what anyone says because we are merely coming from our own limited unique perspectives. Not many of us had the non-physical experiences to justify it. Even the belief that our senses tell us the entire picture (which the OP is implying) is just a belief in itself of course. Beliefs become a problem when they are dogmatically clung to with no room for wiggling, like many of us do by believing everything our senses tell us. You really can't get rid of beliefs, because even when you think you're operating from a non-dual perspective, there's still a level of belief that sneaks in, that colors your perspective. After all, aren't all of our perspectives colored by our own experiences? We can most certainly change our beliefs to something more appealing to us by manifesting from different beliefs. One way or another, you are manifesting, even if you believe you are not. It's just unconscious.

Yet, with that said, I don't consider this a belief because I think when you first hand witness something, you have direct knowledge of it. When thousands and thousands of people are reporting the same thing, and you hear eye witness testimonies, it almost becomes second hand knowledge. If I were merely to believe something, without any evidence to support it, then I can be thrown in with organized religion on believing something based on how I interpreted it. And yet, if want to consider it a belief, that's fine by me too. I don't hold too tightly to it though.

However, there's too much evidence in non physical reports from so many people that I've encountered through research that, to just ignore it. I lean towards the direction that this is very likely. I'm open to being wrong of course, but, the study of non physical realities is irrelevant in this topic of conversation I feel, because it's also how I've applied this information into my greater understanding. Using my own experience, again, for a long time, I've known intuitively that it is so painfully obvious that my own perspective is simply limited. Through meditation, I merely just AM. There's only the 'I AM' or 'AMNESS'. I don't try to analyze that any further. Life is only THIS very experience. But, I'm also not so arrogant to believe that all of the perceived objects within my experience merely disappear when I turn my back because I understand the complexity of how things work, including the human body. There's a lot going on, way beyond the level of my human mind at greater levels of the Universe and smaller levels (the human body process, cell metabolism), that it's just silly to think that my own limited perspective is all there is. If I were to take my own senses directly as a means of claiming truth to the world (like the OP), then I'd be delusional because the Earth appears flat, the sun appears to set, a stick appears to be bent (ahem, Goran), and it would appear that nothing exists when I am not perceiving it (during sleep, etc). I realize that I'm not the Master of the Reality and I realize that my perspective is just a limited perspective of the whole, within the context of the entire picture.